Subject:
|
Re: Global Warming (was: Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 May 2000 13:35:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
843 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > IIRC, the 'trends' have been measured as 1 degree celsius (1.8 F) over the
> > past [hundred I think] years.
>
> That data is suspect. 100 years ago we did not have the technology to
> determine what the temperature was in a repeatable way over enough sample
> points to determine what the average temperature is at a given location.
> We've had that technology for much less than 50 years, I'd say. And 50 years
> does not a climactic trend make.
The determinations of temperature prior to accurate, systematic measurements
by humans are derived from other environmental evidence, rather than simply
noting what the thermometer said 150 years ago. I regret that I don’t have
the particulars of how this is done, and I defer to the more climactically-
inclined among us, but I believe it has to do with, among other things, rates
of tree growth and glacial ice deposits, which can be analyzed back over a
period of millennia.
Is the contention that these methods are also suspect? I’m unable to
defend them other than to say I’ve seen it discussed in numerous programs and
in a number of periodicals, but I can’t provide much more hard data than that.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
228 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
